It's bad enough when those people demand respect for themselves regardless of desert and sometimes by force;...
In this case is worse than that: you see, they control the passport, you should subordinate your need to the needs of the passport, thus they can control you. And they do demonstrate this to you, so his inner self can sleep well that day.
Challenge: show me an idea on TPB, I promise I'll download and seed it.
Show me an idea in any material produced by the MPAA / RIAA?
Nah... even they would admit this is impossible.
Besides, the MPAA/RIAA content doesn't make the majority of TPB... yes, I know, it sound close to phonography, but it's not... and, from this other content, there are better chances to get some ideas on improving your life (or at least some aspects of it).
Imagine a total ban on information sharing between any members of the human race: for how long you reckon the race is still going to exists?
I don't know, and I don't see how that's relevant to whether natural rights exist or not.
(must be one of those day you are dense. Does it happen often?)
Let me elaborate:
a. a "human right" must be universal and unalienable - that is: applicable to all members of the humanity and should not be denied to any of the humans
b. you can discriminate between a natural right and legal right by applying the criterion: if you deny the right to all the humanity, will the human race continue to exist? If negative, than it's a natural right (or, at least, as natural as the need of the humanity to continue to exist). If not, it may or may not be the subject of a law (on the ground that one of the fundamental rights of every citizen: If it is not forbidden by a law, it is allowed, except for the public authorities for which Everything that is not specifically allowed, it's forbidden).
Besides, I provided you with the citation on wikipedia
It wasn't enough. As far as I saw, there is no reason for me to believe that rights are anything but things granted by government/law. No direct evidence of natural rights. Mere speculation.
Well done citizen. Indeed: you are allowed, nay... required!, to believe this is a mere speculation - even if the enemies of the civilization (as you know it) would try to say otherwise.
It is only because the government allowed you to share information with your girl/boy-friend that you are able to say "I love you". If the government would not exist or would not allow you to, you will surely die, because you couldn't ask for food.
Now, aren't you grateful to this wonderful government which is so wise and granted you the right to speak? Why wouldn't you express your gratitude right now, cons... ah, pardon, I meant... Citizen! Don't forget, it is always a good time to exercise your right to share some information about your needs, so do your duty to buy and consume something; the more often, the better.
I've never come across these "natural" rights. Who created them? How do we know what is and is not a "natural right"? All I've seen is rights granted by law.
Imagine a total ban on information sharing between any members of the human race: for how long you reckon the race is still going to exists?
Besides, I provided you with the citation on wikipedia: you are a sincerely curious, you can start your discovery journey from there... who knows, maybe we'll see a new philosophical genius being "born" in your person (even if it wouldn't be quite original idea, there was somebody else before to say "fiat justitia et pereat mundus").
Usually, the govts don't write laws, that's the job of the Parliament and somehow judiciary (by creating precedents).
Where this becomes relevant: at most (and only if smart enough), the executive section of the politics (the govts) might be interested in simplifing the laws - targeting lower cost of enforcement and (possible) higher amount of taxes resulting from a swifter/more flexible economy...
Strangely, not every country has a system of government that is identical to the USA. In the UK, there is not the same separation between executive branch and legislative branch, because the executive (civil service etc.) is ultimately controlled by the Prime Minister, who is the leader of the largest party in the House of Commons.
Strangely, even if in the Commonwealth, not every country have their laws promoted exclusively by the Prime Minister/governing party. Especially when there's a hung Parliament.
On the other hand, "Yes Minister" and "Yes, Prime Minister" (written by someone well connected to a former Minister) suggests what little control the politicians have and how much the civil servants are able to exercise their own will.
The very pieces of art that made me pay attention to the interests in politics. My guess: the US of A have the lobby groups as civil servants.
Usually, the govts don't write laws, that's the job of the Parliament and somehow judiciary (by creating precedents).
Where this becomes relevant: at most (and only if smart enough), the executive section of the politics (the govts) might be interested in simplifing the laws - targeting lower cost of enforcement and (possible) higher amount of taxes resulting from a swifter/more flexible economy... But not the parliamentarians (senators, MP-es or whatever), they have absolutely no interest of "cleaning up" after themselves. Letting aside that a more complex legislation "justifies" their (and the lawyers') existence, how would they otherwise collect election donations (negotiated by the lobby groups) ? Analyzing what laws can be thrown out would be... unproductive time for them.
If you're not with Ron Paul and the Freedom movement, you're part of the problem.
By this do you mean to say: the whole world outside the US of A is part of the problem?
And you want to do this without imposing any hierarchy (of the type "boxes withing boxes") on the 3D object's surface, yes? Assuming that it is possible, once the event is generated, how would you implement the event processing if you can't discriminate on the type of your "event source"?
Why do you need a hierarchy to have an event source? Maybe each piece of data is an event source. Maybe the data is "drawn on the 3D surface" because it matches some criteria which can change over time and has no impact on the behaviour of interacting with the data. Whatever!
Unless he asks for a holographic GUI, when interacting with a 3D projection in 2D, one will need to solve 2 problems:
1. data presentation and exploration - you know, like rotating the POV, zooming in/out, etc. Believe me, it is necessary
2. Interaction - even if only the selection of one sample point.
You'll need to distinguish then between an event that doesn't have the subject a sample (like a navigation gesture) from an event that have the subject a data point. But... as you say... whatever.
Given that one of the areas of research is developing new UI components it seems reasonable to want to do away with the standard models (or at least not be restricted to them).
Huh? Developing new UI components in the context of "I am not a professional software developer and never have any aspirations to become one"? Go away, I wonder why I'm bothering to answer to AC trolls.
If the patent is only granted to a limited number of people it's not FRAND. Hence it would be against these very terms.
The entire population of humans is and will be limited. Hence is not and will never be FRAND.
The way I see, it's very much like military intelligence - an oxymoron that, for some unknown reasons, the humans are tricked into accepting as rational.
Swing does in Java. (Boxes in boxes in boxes, Oh My!)
Oh my, is that what it troubles you? Let's see...
draw what I want, where I want and make any surface of that 3D object become a source for capturing events;
And you want to do this without imposing any hierarchy (of the type "boxes withing boxes") on the 3D object's surface, yes? Assuming that it is possible, once the event is generated, how would you implement the event processing if you can't discriminate on the type of your "event source"?
I do OK with Java and prefer it, though I still have to look up every API before I use it
Looking into every API, you say. And you say you'd like to finish looking in this life, so that you could do something?
My advice for this case: the shortest path to destination is the one you already know. Otherwise, if you don't plan to become a professional software developer, hire one.
Is that like how Lexus discriminates against people who can only afford Toyotas, or scooters, or bicycles?
I don't like the current patent system, but an argument that boils down to "I can't afford it, so I can take it for free" is not very compelling.
Except that we aren't talking about Toyota now, are talking about the European Parliament... you know, the guys that are supposed to make sure the technology that it will use won't discriminate against any citizens in the Union. The same guys that should make sure the collected taxes are used, to the best possible, in their citizens interest - and Open Source is able to deliver technology at a lower cost, so why should they be excluded from the very start?
Have these people never heard of "less is more." Bureaucrats can't even get laziness right.
1. Bureaucrats' existence is absolutely linked on the "more"... lazy or not, being about survival, what do you expect?
2. the risk of using aphorisms: would you accept a lower pay-check based on the "less is more"?
The only issue I see with it is that it creates a nightmare for enforcement on the part of the standards body, since they have no way of knowing whether or not the royalty was paid on any particular copy of the software (since I might sell some free software to you, and you might give it to 10 people, who might sell it at different prices, etc.).
Yes, it will create a nightmare for the enforcement. But why should be this the FOSS community problem?
There is nothing in FRAND, that I can see, that prohibits open source software or other open IP. In fact, Standards committees -- given a choice -- would far rather build in open IP to closed IP (even FRAND) into a Standard. Can someone knowledgable explain how FRAND in any way harms open source?
Prohibits, no. However it does discriminate against those who cannot pay the license fees but would otherwise still be able to implement the standard - most of the open-source contributors are like this - e.g. VideoLAN (scroll down to "Patent threats").
Tragedy has now struck the Russian team. Dr. Gilichinksy, its leader, was hospitalized with an asthma attack and unable to respond to questions, his daughter Yana said on Friday. On Saturday, Dr. Price reported that Dr. Gilichinsky had died of a heart attack.
Slashdot Mirror
Tell ye, should go there on periods of max solar activity: the solar wind contributes to the chill factor ;)
It's bad enough when those people demand respect for themselves regardless of desert and sometimes by force; ...
In this case is worse than that: you see, they control the passport, you should subordinate your need to the needs of the passport, thus they can control you. And they do demonstrate this to you, so his inner self can sleep well that day.
Nothing like hacking at all, IMHO.
Do the hacking on the correct subjects and the expense matter is solved, I imagine.
Because the moon has Stuff. You can build things from Stuff. The moon may not be the best place to go mining, but it's infinitely better than vacuum
Vacuum? Why there's plenty of matter and energy! True, dark ones, but a blackhat should be able to deal with darkness.
It's not that cool.
It's not cool, it's freezing cold!
Challenge: show me an idea on TPB, I promise I'll download and seed it.
Show me an idea in any material produced by the MPAA / RIAA?
Nah... even they would admit this is impossible.
Besides, the MPAA/RIAA content doesn't make the majority of TPB... yes, I know, it sound close to phonography, but it's not... and, from this other content, there are better chances to get some ideas on improving your life (or at least some aspects of it).
Imagine a total ban on information sharing between any members of the human race: for how long you reckon the race is still going to exists?
I don't know, and I don't see how that's relevant to whether natural rights exist or not.
(must be one of those day you are dense. Does it happen often?)
Let me elaborate:
a. a "human right" must be universal and unalienable - that is: applicable to all members of the humanity and should not be denied to any of the humans
b. you can discriminate between a natural right and legal right by applying the criterion: if you deny the right to all the humanity, will the human race continue to exist? If negative, than it's a natural right (or, at least, as natural as the need of the humanity to continue to exist). If not, it may or may not be the subject of a law (on the ground that one of the fundamental rights of every citizen: If it is not forbidden by a law, it is allowed, except for the public authorities for which Everything that is not specifically allowed, it's forbidden ).
Besides, I provided you with the citation on wikipedia
It wasn't enough. As far as I saw, there is no reason for me to believe that rights are anything but things granted by government/law. No direct evidence of natural rights. Mere speculation.
Well done citizen. Indeed: you are allowed, nay... required!, to believe this is a mere speculation - even if the enemies of the civilization (as you know it) would try to say otherwise.
It is only because the government allowed you to share information with your girl/boy-friend that you are able to say "I love you". If the government would not exist or would not allow you to, you will surely die, because you couldn't ask for food.
Now, aren't you grateful to this wonderful government which is so wise and granted you the right to speak? Why wouldn't you express your gratitude right now, cons... ah, pardon, I meant...
Citizen! Don't forget, it is always a good time to exercise your right to share some information about your needs, so do your duty to buy and consume something; the more often, the better.
I've never come across these "natural" rights. Who created them? How do we know what is and is not a "natural right"? All I've seen is rights granted by law.
Imagine a total ban on information sharing between any members of the human race: for how long you reckon the race is still going to exists?
Besides, I provided you with the citation on wikipedia: you are a sincerely curious, you can start your discovery journey from there... who knows, maybe we'll see a new philosophical genius being "born" in your person (even if it wouldn't be quite original idea, there was somebody else before to say "fiat justitia et pereat mundus").
Strangely, not every country has a system of government that is identical to the USA. In the UK, there is not the same separation between executive branch and legislative branch, because the executive (civil service etc.) is ultimately controlled by the Prime Minister, who is the leader of the largest party in the House of Commons.
Strangely, even if in the Commonwealth, not every country have their laws promoted exclusively by the Prime Minister/governing party. Especially when there's a hung Parliament.
On the other hand, "Yes Minister" and "Yes, Prime Minister" (written by someone well connected to a former Minister) suggests what little control the politicians have and how much the civil servants are able to exercise their own will.
The very pieces of art that made me pay attention to the interests in politics. My guess: the US of A have the lobby groups as civil servants.
Whoops, meant to ask "Are you saying humanity doomed if we don't censor the internet and imprison people who don't pay royalties for spreading ideas?"
Challenge: show me an idea on TPB, I promise I'll download and seed it.
On the other hand, if you'd replace "idea" with "information", I might be tempted to agree with you.
(hint: careful with those words, they tend to cut both ways).
information sharing is a natural right
FTFY.
It never goes the other way. Ever.
Usually, the govts don't write laws, that's the job of the Parliament and somehow judiciary (by creating precedents).
Where this becomes relevant: at most (and only if smart enough), the executive section of the politics (the govts) might be interested in simplifing the laws - targeting lower cost of enforcement and (possible) higher amount of taxes resulting from a swifter/more flexible economy...
But not the parliamentarians (senators, MP-es or whatever), they have absolutely no interest of "cleaning up" after themselves. Letting aside that a more complex legislation "justifies" their (and the lawyers') existence, how would they otherwise collect election donations (negotiated by the lobby groups) ? Analyzing what laws can be thrown out would be... unproductive time for them.
If you're not with Ron Paul and the Freedom movement, you're part of the problem.
By this do you mean to say: the whole world outside the US of A is part of the problem?
And you want to do this without imposing any hierarchy (of the type "boxes withing boxes") on the 3D object's surface, yes? Assuming that it is possible, once the event is generated, how would you implement the event processing if you can't discriminate on the type of your "event source"?
Why do you need a hierarchy to have an event source? Maybe each piece of data is an event source. Maybe the data is "drawn on the 3D surface" because it matches some criteria which can change over time and has no impact on the behaviour of interacting with the data. Whatever!
Unless he asks for a holographic GUI, when interacting with a 3D projection in 2D, one will need to solve 2 problems:
1. data presentation and exploration - you know, like rotating the POV, zooming in/out, etc. Believe me, it is necessary
2. Interaction - even if only the selection of one sample point.
You'll need to distinguish then between an event that doesn't have the subject a sample (like a navigation gesture) from an event that have the subject a data point.
But... as you say... whatever.
Given that one of the areas of research is developing new UI components it seems reasonable to want to do away with the standard models (or at least not be restricted to them).
Huh? Developing new UI components in the context of "I am not a professional software developer and never have any aspirations to become one" ? Go away, I wonder why I'm bothering to answer to AC trolls.
If the patent is only granted to a limited number of people it's not FRAND. Hence it would be against these very terms.
The entire population of humans is and will be limited. Hence is not and will never be FRAND.
The way I see, it's very much like military intelligence - an oxymoron that, for some unknown reasons, the humans are tricked into accepting as rational.
Swing does in Java. (Boxes in boxes in boxes, Oh My!)
Oh my, is that what it troubles you? Let's see...
draw what I want, where I want and make any surface of that 3D object become a source for capturing events;
And you want to do this without imposing any hierarchy (of the type "boxes withing boxes") on the 3D object's surface, yes? Assuming that it is possible, once the event is generated, how would you implement the event processing if you can't discriminate on the type of your "event source"?
I do OK with Java and prefer it, though I still have to look up every API before I use it
Looking into every API, you say. And you say you'd like to finish looking in this life, so that you could do something?
My advice for this case: the shortest path to destination is the one you already know. Otherwise, if you don't plan to become a professional software developer, hire one.
Is that like how Lexus discriminates against people who can only afford Toyotas, or scooters, or bicycles?
I don't like the current patent system, but an argument that boils down to "I can't afford it, so I can take it for free" is not very compelling.
Except that we aren't talking about Toyota now, are talking about the European Parliament... you know, the guys that are supposed to make sure the technology that it will use won't discriminate against any citizens in the Union.
The same guys that should make sure the collected taxes are used, to the best possible, in their citizens interest - and Open Source is able to deliver technology at a lower cost, so why should they be excluded from the very start?
Have these people never heard of "less is more." Bureaucrats can't even get laziness right.
1. Bureaucrats' existence is absolutely linked on the "more"... lazy or not, being about survival, what do you expect?
2. the risk of using aphorisms: would you accept a lower pay-check based on the "less is more"?
If it costs anything, then it excludes some people/groups from implementing it, therefore it ISN'T A FUCKING STANDARD!!!
It can still be a standard but it won't be an open standard.
The only issue I see with it is that it creates a nightmare for enforcement on the part of the standards body, since they have no way of knowing whether or not the royalty was paid on any particular copy of the software (since I might sell some free software to you, and you might give it to 10 people, who might sell it at different prices, etc.).
Yes, it will create a nightmare for the enforcement. But why should be this the FOSS community problem?
There is nothing in FRAND, that I can see, that prohibits open source software or other open IP. In fact, Standards committees -- given a choice -- would far rather build in open IP to closed IP (even FRAND) into a Standard. Can someone knowledgable explain how FRAND in any way harms open source?
Prohibits, no. However it does discriminate against those who cannot pay the license fees but would otherwise still be able to implement the standard - most of the open-source contributors are like this - e.g. VideoLAN (scroll down to "Patent threats").
Just what I need - another plant to be allergic to.
TFA the 2nd:
Tragedy has now struck the Russian team. Dr. Gilichinksy, its leader, was hospitalized with an asthma attack and unable to respond to questions
... get over it, move on, do something productive for TODAY.
Like... stop posting on /.?
.. revived plants kill you!
FTFY. From the second FA:
Tragedy has now struck the Russian team. Dr. Gilichinksy, its leader, was hospitalized with an asthma attack and unable to respond to questions, his daughter Yana said on Friday. On Saturday, Dr. Price reported that Dr. Gilichinsky had died of a heart attack.
Good point.
Maybe somebody should write an app that lets the sender speak into the phone, and the receiver hear it immediately.
I'd jump in, but it's probably already patented.
I believe you are thinking of US patent No. 174,465. Unless they extended the life of a patent to over 136 years, you should be safe.
I want steam based computing. Big things lots of spinning wheels and whistles. Down with this mamby-pamby micro electronics.
Just be careful with overclocking.